Bitcoin XT - Officially #REKT (also goes for BIP101 fraud)

[brg444]

No, what's happening is that you people are hitting the real bitcoiners with wave after wave of propaganda, desperately trying to distort the facts to make it appear like you're "saving" Bitcoin, when really you're part of a campaign by the banks (who own all the companies who support BIP101) to get hold of Bitcoin and destroy it's decentralisation. What's so hilarious is that this is literally the only avenue of attack left open to you people, you can't use real arguments or force, because you know they won't work. You're essentially one long letter of capitulation.

I am advocating decentralization and freedom and you are accusing me of working for the banks. I am making real arguments even though you deny that I am, at least I do acknowledge that you are making arguments as well. There is an irony to you resorting to such personal attacks even after you made this statement:

You claim you've been "insulted and attacked on a continuous basis", but the evidence for that simply doesn't exist. As I said, your beliefs and ideas have been ridiculed, but only those that relate specifically to this debate. Not ad hominem.

Er, I wasn't talking to you. Is there anything else I can help you with?

Maybe explain to him how consensus work and why we can't have multiple implementations out there enforcing different block size.

This divide & conquer tactic is really getting tiring.

[croTek4]

Either decisions are made using proof of work or they are not.

    Bitcoin consensus does not comes about through proof of work [longest chain]

If the nodes and miners reject a block as invalid then it would not persist as the longest chain. If the nodes and miners accept a block and continue to build on top of it, then that chain is Bitcoin.

Proof-of-work both enforces and defines the laws of the systems

Proof-of-work exists to order transactions deemed valid by the consensus of rules dictated by the nodes.

For the millionth time it's the longest *valid* chain you disingenuous fuck

There's real civil discussion going on here huh?

[VeritasSapere]

Either decisions are made using proof of work or they are not.

    Bitcoin consensus does not comes about through proof of work [longest chain]

If the nodes and miners reject a block as invalid then it would not persist as the longest chain. If the nodes and miners accept a block and continue to build on top of it, then that chain is Bitcoin.

Proof-of-work both enforces and defines the laws of the systems

Proof-of-work exists to order transactions deemed valid by the consensus of rules dictated by the nodes.

For the millionth time it's the longest *valid* chain you disingenuous fuck

The longest valid chain is determined by the miners according to where they point their hashing power. Miners also choose what code they run and therefore what type of blocks they produce. Therefore the miners can fork the network and create the longest valid chain even if the majority of full nodes choose not to follow such a fork. Essentially both the miners and the full nodes have the free choice to run whatever code they want, however it is the miners that determine which side of the fork will have the longest valid chain.

Therefore when Bitcoin forks in order to increase the blocksize which will most likely happen since the majority of miners do support increasing the blocksize. Small blockists can choose to ignore the longest chain causing the network to split. I respect this freedom of choice even though you have continuously denied it, which might be very ironic if you do end up on the smaller chain.

[brg444]

Either decisions are made using proof of work or they are not.

    Bitcoin consensus does not comes about through proof of work [longest chain]

If the nodes and miners reject a block as invalid then it would not persist as the longest chain. If the nodes and miners accept a block and continue to build on top of it, then that chain is Bitcoin.

Proof-of-work both enforces and defines the laws of the systems

Proof-of-work exists to order transactions deemed valid by the consensus of rules dictated by the nodes.

For the millionth time it's the longest *valid* chain you disingenuous fuck

There's real civil discussion going on here huh?

Deception agents deserve not an ounce of respect

[brg444]

Either decisions are made using proof of work or they are not.

    Bitcoin consensus does not comes about through proof of work [longest chain]

If the nodes and miners reject a block as invalid then it would not persist as the longest chain. If the nodes and miners accept a block and continue to build on top of it, then that chain is Bitcoin.

Proof-of-work both enforces and defines the laws of the systems

Proof-of-work exists to order transactions deemed valid by the consensus of rules dictated by the nodes.

For the millionth time it's the longest *valid* chain you disingenuous fuck

The longest valid chain is determined by the miners according to where they point their hashing power. Miners also choose what code they run and therefore what type of blocks they produce. Therefore the miners can fork the network and create the longest valid chain even if the majority of full nodes choose not to follow such a fork. Essentially both the miners and the full nodes have the free choice to run whatever code they want, however it is the miners that determine which side of the fork will have the longest valid chain.

Therefore when Bitcoin forks in order to increase the blocksize which will most likely happen since the majority of miners do support increasing the blocksize. Small blockists can choose to ignore the longest chain causing the network to split. I respect this freedom of choice even though you have continuously denied it, which might be very ironic if you do end up on the smaller chain.

I really don't want to get into this debate this morning but you're clueless.

Do you even understand the part about valid chain?

The valid part is concerned with the fact that the transactions are conform with the rules enforced by the network of peers. Bitcoin being a peer-to-peer network no node is more important than the others, whether they mine or not.

If miners today decided to point their hashing power to Dogecoin it wouldn't make it Bitcoin. From the point of view of the Bitcoin network the hashing power merely dropped and that's it.

To be clear, the miners can not go against the majority of nodes. If they do so they only succeed in forking themselves out of the network and mine worthless tokens.

If you don't understand this very simple fact there's really no use pursuing any Bitcoin related discussion with you.

I give you a E for effort. Now return to your homeworks.

[RoadTrain]

Either decisions are made using proof of work or they are not.

    Bitcoin consensus does not comes about through proof of work [longest chain]

If the nodes and miners reject a block as invalid then it would not persist as the longest chain. If the nodes and miners accept a block and continue to build on top of it, then that chain is Bitcoin.

Proof-of-work both enforces and defines the laws of the systems

Proof-of-work exists to order transactions deemed valid by the consensus of rules dictated by the nodes.

For the millionth time it's the longest *valid* chain you disingenuous fuck

The longest valid chain is determined by the miners according to where they point their hashing power. Miners also choose what code they run and therefore what type of blocks they produce. Therefore the miners can fork the network and create the longest valid chain even if the majority of full nodes choose not to follow such a fork. Essentially both the miners and the full nodes have the free choice to run whatever code they want, however it is the miners that determine which side of the fork will have the longest valid chain.

Therefore when Bitcoin forks in order to increase the blocksize which will most likely happen since the majority of miners do support increasing the blocksize. Small blockists can choose to ignore the longest chain causing the network to split. I respect this freedom of choice even though you have continuously denied it, which might be very ironic if you do end up on the smaller chain.

What you are explaining here is the longest chain, without the word valid. While the longest chain is usually valid, it's not necessarily so. Validity is decided by the nodes which are the economic majority. Miners are incentivized to follow the economic majority, but they are not required to do so.

[VeritasSapere]

Either decisions are made using proof of work or they are not.

    Bitcoin consensus does not comes about through proof of work [longest chain]

If the nodes and miners reject a block as invalid then it would not persist as the longest chain. If the nodes and miners accept a block and continue to build on top of it, then that chain is Bitcoin.

Proof-of-work both enforces and defines the laws of the systems

Proof-of-work exists to order transactions deemed valid by the consensus of rules dictated by the nodes.

For the millionth time it's the longest *valid* chain you disingenuous fuck

The longest valid chain is determined by the miners according to where they point their hashing power. Miners also choose what code they run and therefore what type of blocks they produce. Therefore the miners can fork the network and create the longest valid chain even if the majority of full nodes choose not to follow such a fork. Essentially both the miners and the full nodes have the free choice to run whatever code they want, however it is the miners that determine which side of the fork will have the longest valid chain.

Therefore when Bitcoin forks in order to increase the blocksize which will most likely happen since the majority of miners do support increasing the blocksize. Small blockists can choose to ignore the longest chain causing the network to split. I respect this freedom of choice even though you have continuously denied it, which might be very ironic if you do end up on the smaller chain.

What you are explaining here is the longest chain, without the word valid. While the longest chain is usually valid, it's not necessarily so. Validity is decided by the nodes which are the economic majority. Miners are incentivized to follow the economic majority, but they are not required to do so.

Exactly, therefore Bitcoin is ruled by the economic majority with the miners acting like a type of proxy for the economic majority. I agree with you completely on these points.

[brg444]

Either decisions are made using proof of work or they are not.

    Bitcoin consensus does not comes about through proof of work [longest chain]

If the nodes and miners reject a block as invalid then it would not persist as the longest chain. If the nodes and miners accept a block and continue to build on top of it, then that chain is Bitcoin.

Proof-of-work both enforces and defines the laws of the systems

Proof-of-work exists to order transactions deemed valid by the consensus of rules dictated by the nodes.

For the millionth time it's the longest *valid* chain you disingenuous fuck

The longest valid chain is determined by the miners according to where they point their hashing power. Miners also choose what code they run and therefore what type of blocks they produce. Therefore the miners can fork the network and create the longest valid chain even if the majority of full nodes choose not to follow such a fork. Essentially both the miners and the full nodes have the free choice to run whatever code they want, however it is the miners that determine which side of the fork will have the longest valid chain.

Therefore when Bitcoin forks in order to increase the blocksize which will most likely happen since the majority of miners do support increasing the blocksize. Small blockists can choose to ignore the longest chain causing the network to split. I respect this freedom of choice even though you have continuously denied it, which might be very ironic if you do end up on the smaller chain.

What you are explaining here is the longest chain, without the word valid. While the longest chain is usually valid, it's not necessarily so. Validity is decided by the nodes which are the economic majority. Miners are incentivized to follow the economic majority, but they are not required to do so.

Exactly, therefore Bitcoin is ruled by the economic majority with the miners acting like a type of proxy for the economic majority. I agree with you completely on these points.

A proxy?

No.

The miners are dogs to the economic majority (the investors). They have to be kept on a tight leach and certainly have never and will never themselves determine the outcome of a fork

[Carlton Banks]

What you are explaining here is the longest chain, without the word valid. While the longest chain is usually valid, it's not necessarily so. Validity is decided by the nodes which are the economic majority. Miners are incentivized to follow the economic majority, but they are not required to do so.

I don't think that's how it works at present. As I understand it, the longest chain is decided by the software, the user has no way to determine which chain the software follows. Might be wrong, but it's a debugging feature if it exists at all.

[brg444]

What you are explaining here is the longest chain, without the word valid. While the longest chain is usually valid, it's not necessarily so. Validity is decided by the nodes which are the economic majority. Miners are incentivized to follow the economic majority, but they are not required to do so.

I don't think that's how it works at present. As I understand it, the longest chain is decided by the software, the user has no way to determine which chain the software follows. Might be wrong, but it's a debugging feature if it exists at all.

The users decide on the software he runs fully aware of the rules it enforces.

The point is miners cannot go and start mining invalid blocks on a different chain and expect the economic majority behind Bitcoin will follow, they won't.

[VeritasSapere]

Either decisions are made using proof of work or they are not.

    Bitcoin consensus does not comes about through proof of work [longest chain]

If the nodes and miners reject a block as invalid then it would not persist as the longest chain. If the nodes and miners accept a block and continue to build on top of it, then that chain is Bitcoin.

Proof-of-work both enforces and defines the laws of the systems

Proof-of-work exists to order transactions deemed valid by the consensus of rules dictated by the nodes.

For the millionth time it's the longest *valid* chain you disingenuous fuck

The longest valid chain is determined by the miners according to where they point their hashing power. Miners also choose what code they run and therefore what type of blocks they produce. Therefore the miners can fork the network and create the longest valid chain even if the majority of full nodes choose not to follow such a fork. Essentially both the miners and the full nodes have the free choice to run whatever code they want, however it is the miners that determine which side of the fork will have the longest valid chain.

Therefore when Bitcoin forks in order to increase the blocksize which will most likely happen since the majority of miners do support increasing the blocksize. Small blockists can choose to ignore the longest chain causing the network to split. I respect this freedom of choice even though you have continuously denied it, which might be very ironic if you do end up on the smaller chain.

The valid part is concerned with the fact that the transactions are conform with the rules enforced by the network of peers. Bitcoin being a peer-to-peer network no node is more important than the others, whether they mine or not.

Behind the full nodes are people and they can choose to run whatever code they want.

If miners today decided to point their hashing power to Dogecoin it wouldn't make it Bitcoin. From the point of view of the Bitcoin network the hashing power merely dropped and that's it.

It is impossible to mine Dogecoin with Bitcoin ASICS, Dogecoin uses a different algorithm compared to Bitcoin.

To be clear, the miners can not go against the majority of nodes. If they do so they only succeed in forking themselves out of the network and mine worthless tokens.

Technically they can, practically it depends on whether the majority of nodes actually represent the economic majority or not, since nodes can easily be spoofed, this is why proof of work is so useful since it is a better measure of consensus because it can not easily be faked.

[hdbuck]

valid is a concept that derives from the subconscient of bitcoin's hard core and savy technologists (who have more interesting things to do than spending any time on forums and social networks)...

luckily they also have lots of bitcoins and resources to keep monetary sovereignty on track.

any ph0rk or govcoin will be rejected by the network as from validity thrives bitcoin's value.

cant beat cold math and apolitical logic. in vires numeris.

[Peter R]

Either decisions are made using proof of work or they are not.

    Bitcoin consensus does not comes about through proof of work [longest chain]

If the nodes and miners reject a block as invalid then it would not persist as the longest chain. If the nodes and miners accept a block and continue to build on top of it, then that chain is Bitcoin.

Proof-of-work both enforces and defines the laws of the systems

Proof-of-work exists to order transactions deemed valid by the consensus of rules dictated by the nodes.

For the millionth time it's the longest *valid* chain you disingenuous fuck

I agree.  Nodes will only accept and miners will only build upon a chain that contains valid blocks.  A chain that persists as the longest and continues to be built upon must be valid.

[brg444]

Behind the full nodes are people and they can choose to run whatever code they want.

So? What's your point?

It is impossible to mine Dogecoin with Bitcoin ASICS, Dogecoin uses a different algorithm compared to Bitcoin.

I'm guessing you simply chose to ignore the argument. Dogecoin was simply an example.

Technically they can, practically it depends on whether the majority of nodes actually represent the economic majority or not, since nodes can easily be spoofed, this is why proof of work is so useful since it is a better measure of consensus because it can not easily be faked.

You suceeded in side stepping the whole of my argument to basically say nothing.

It doesn't matter that nodes can be spoofed. What matters is the nodes being run by the ones holding sizeable investements into the system. If the miners try to go against their will they will be bankrupted.

[VeritasSapere]

What you are explaining here is the longest chain, without the word valid. While the longest chain is usually valid, it's not necessarily so. Validity is decided by the nodes which are the economic majority. Miners are incentivized to follow the economic majority, but they are not required to do so.

I don't think that's how it works at present. As I understand it, the longest chain is decided by the software, the user has no way to determine which chain the software follows. Might be wrong, but it's a debugging feature if it exists at all.

The longest chain is decided by the software that the majority of miners choose to run. It is the users that determine which chain the software follows because it is the users that choose the code in the form of what type of full nodes they decide to support, the same is true for the miners.

This might be the aspect of the Bitcoin network you are failing to take account of, the human element. This aspect of the Bitcoin network does not fit neatly in the discipline of computer science, a multidisciplinary approach is required in order to better understand the various dynamics that make up the body politic of Bitcoin. From game theory, psychology, politics and economics. Bitcoin might not always be entirely rational considering that it does reflect the will of the economic majority.

[tvbcof]

We have seen this 'longest chain' verbiage where 'valid' is notably excluded for some time.  I take it as a backup or auxiliary attack strategy.  Every opportunity is taken to lay the foundation participant misunderstanding however.  That misinformation effort seems to have picked up again over this last month here on bitcointalk.org.

Basically, if a bloatblock (for instance) can be inserted just one time, it would fork the chain and obsolete Bitcoin core software.  A combination of political/enforcement activities against mining centers in 'aligned' jurisdictions and blocking of those operating in non-aligned jurisdictions would do the trick.  We've already seen Hearndresen work the political end of things in surreptitious meetings and pressures on large mining installations and their management structures.  Thankfully these activities appear, outwardly at least, to have been relatively unsuccessful and it seems to have spurred an uptick in alternate related attack strategies.

A nicety of this attack would be that operators could shed crocodile tears about the 'unfortunate' situation, but say "longest chain, what can we do?"

The workability of this attack strategy relies on several things:

 - There is widespread misunderstanding of the 'valid' part of 'longest valid chain.'

 - Bitcoin core is molded into a situation where it fails if it does not act as a near real-time system.  That is to say, those who rely on it are not able to take a 'hiatus' for the amount of time it takes to mount and win a counter strategy (which would be more political than anything else.)

Subordinate chains could continue to operate during a hiatus in core function, but in degraded form.  This 'degraded but still functional' aspect would take much of the pressure off the core (aka, the 'backing') solution and allow it to outlive an attack such as the described.  Such an attack would be expensive and difficult as a function directly related to the time over which it must be sustained.

[brg444]

Either decisions are made using proof of work or they are not.

    Bitcoin consensus does not comes about through proof of work [longest chain]

If the nodes and miners reject a block as invalid then it would not persist as the longest chain. If the nodes and miners accept a block and continue to build on top of it, then that chain is Bitcoin.

Proof-of-work both enforces and defines the laws of the systems

Proof-of-work exists to order transactions deemed valid by the consensus of rules dictated by the nodes.

For the millionth time it's the longest *valid* chain you disingenuous fuck

I agree.  Nodes will only accept and miners will only build upon a chain that contains valid blocks.  A chain that persists as the longest and continues to be built upon must be valid.

Except that's not true as was evidenced by the July 4th forks in which 5 consecutive invalid blocks were mined on top of each others.

Same is also true for the March 2013 fork.

[Peter R]

Either decisions are made using proof of work or they are not.

    Bitcoin consensus does not comes about through proof of work [longest chain]

If the nodes and miners reject a block as invalid then it would not persist as the longest chain. If the nodes and miners accept a block and continue to build on top of it, then that chain is Bitcoin.

Proof-of-work both enforces and defines the laws of the systems

Proof-of-work exists to order transactions deemed valid by the consensus of rules dictated by the nodes.

For the millionth time it's the longest *valid* chain you disingenuous fuck

I agree.  Nodes will only accept and miners will only build upon a chain that contains valid blocks.  A chain that persists as the longest and continues to be built upon must be valid.

Except that's not true as was evidenced by the July 4th forks in which 5 consecutive invalid blocks were mined on top of each others.

Same is also true for the March 2013 fork.

It was true: miners and nodes abandoned those chains and they did not persist as the longest. 

[brg444]

Either decisions are made using proof of work or they are not.

    Bitcoin consensus does not comes about through proof of work [longest chain]

If the nodes and miners reject a block as invalid then it would not persist as the longest chain. If the nodes and miners accept a block and continue to build on top of it, then that chain is Bitcoin.

Proof-of-work both enforces and defines the laws of the systems

Proof-of-work exists to order transactions deemed valid by the consensus of rules dictated by the nodes.

For the millionth time it's the longest *valid* chain you disingenuous fuck

I agree.  Nodes will only accept and miners will only build upon a chain that contains valid blocks.  A chain that persists as the longest and continues to be built upon must be valid.

Except that's not true as was evidenced by the July 4th forks in which 5 consecutive invalid blocks were mined on top of each others.

Same is also true for the March 2013 fork.

It was true: miners and nodes abandoned those chains and they did not persist as the longest. 

Great, so we agree that miners hold no power over what constitutes the longest valid chain.

[brg444]

What you are explaining here is the longest chain, without the word valid. While the longest chain is usually valid, it's not necessarily so. Validity is decided by the nodes which are the economic majority. Miners are incentivized to follow the economic majority, but they are not required to do so.

I don't think that's how it works at present. As I understand it, the longest chain is decided by the software, the user has no way to determine which chain the software follows. Might be wrong, but it's a debugging feature if it exists at all.

The longest chain

"The longest chain" per say is irrelevant.

Only the longest chain which the network of nodes (users) decide as valid is Bitcoin hence why the miners' decision to fork to a new software is inconsequential.